Teacher Union Leaders Open Way To Strike

In its efforts to gain a multi-year contract, the governing body of the Chicago Teachers Union voted unanimously Monday to authorize a teachers`

strike on Sept. 3 if the union does not have an acceptable contract by then.

A walkout by the 28,000-member union would be the third teachers` strike against the Chicago Board of Education in as many years, and would prevent public school classes from resuming on schedule Sept. 4.

The union`s House of Delegates voted 840-0 to approve a strike after discussing the matter for only 25 minutes.

Jacqueline Vaughn, union president, described the quick vote as a ``show of unity.`` In the past, the House of Delegates has discussed the pros and cons of a strike for an hour or more before voting.

In other action, the House of Delegates set an Aug. 31 deadline for reaching a contract agreement. That is the date that the union`s one-year contract with the school board expires.

The union membership vowed earlier that they will not work this fall without a new contract. Teachers are scheduled to report to their schools Sept. 3 to get ready for classes to resume the next day.

In the fall of 1983 and 1984, teachers and other unionized school employees agreed to work while negotiations on new contracts continued. Last year, the negotiations broke down and a two-week strike in December resulted. In 1983, the unions struck for 15 school days in October.

A House of Delegates resolution Monday instructed the union leadership to give formal notice of the intention to strike if no agreement is reached by next Monday. Illinois law requires school employee unions to give at least five-days` notice before striking.

Negotiations with the school board are to resume Tuesday morning. At a news conference after the strike vote, Vaughn said the two sides are ``miles apart`` on wage issues.

She declined to say what the board is offering or what the union is seeking.

However, it was learned that the teachers are seeking an annual raise of 8 to 10 percent a year while the board has been offering about 1 to 2 percent. Each 1 percent increase in employees` pay adds $9 million annually to the school budget.

This year one of the union`s prime demands is for a multi-year contract with raises each year. Vaughn said a multi-year contract is needed ``to bring stability to the system. People are sick and tired of the annual crises.``

School board members and others agree in principle. But the board fears that it may not have the money to grant future-year pay raises that could be included in such a contract.

In the past, the Chicago School Finance Authority, which controls school board financial dealings, has barred multi-year labor contracts because the board was unable to say where it would get the money to pay future raises.

This year, the Illiois legislature, prodded by the teachers union, enacted a measure prohibiting the finance authority from rejecting a union contract for this reason.

Despite that, Vaughn said Monday that negotiations with the school board have been stalled over ``the language that is necessary to satisfy the objections of the School Finance Authority.``

Gov. James Thompson, who has announced plans to seek a fourth term as governor next year, sought a compromise over the weekend.

The bill limiting the power of the finance authority is awaiting Thompson`s signature before becoming law, and he offered to use his amendatory veto power to reword it to provide some financial safeguards for the school board.

But School Supt. Manford Byrd Jr. and Jerome W. Van Gorkom, chairman of the finance authority, said the Thompson compromise does not do enough for the board.

Byrd said the board could wind up having to grant pay raises to teachers and other employees in the second year of contracts, and to slash programs and fire employees to pay for the raise.

Vaughn said there is no need for the governor to change anything. ``This is a shell game and an attempt on the part of some people to push us to the brink of a crisis,`` she said.

The addition that Thompson offered to put in the bill is:

``Any terms and provisions of a contract or agreement which would increase expenditures for salaries, benefits or other forms of compensation after expiration of the first year of such contract or agreement shall be contingent upon attainment of sufficient available revenues considering all necessary expenditures to support such increases.``

Byrd said, ``In the wording, you can make all kinds of arguments: The money is actually available. You just change your priorities.``

James Reilly, the governor`s chief of staff, said that in meetings with representatives of the teachers union, the school board and the finance authority, the union wanted the governor to sign the bill as enacted by the legislature while the finance authority wanted him to veto it outright.